The Initial Stages of Consumer Trust Building in e-Commerce: a Study on Finnish Consumers

(1)

ACTA WASAENSIA NO 201 B U S I N E S S A D M I N I S T R AT I O N 8 3

M A R K E T I N G

The Initial Stages of Consumer Trust Building in e-Commerce

A Study on Finnish Consumers

(2)

Reviewers Professor of Marketing Hannu Kuusela Department of Management Studies FI–33014 University of Tampere Finland

Professor of Marketing (Acting) Heikki Karjaluoto School of Business and Economics

P.O. Box 35 (MaE)

FI–40014 University of Jyväskylä Finland

(3)

Julkaisija Julkaisuajankohta

Vaasan yliopisto Toukokuu 2009

Tekijä(t) Julkaisun tyyppi Monografia

Julkaisusarjan nimi, osan numero Kyösti Pennanen

Acta Wasaensia, 201

Yhteystiedot ISBN

978–952–476–257–1 ISSN

0355–2667, 1235–7871 Sivumäärä Kieli Vaasan yliopisto

Kauppatieteellinen tiedekunta Markkinoinnin laitos

PL 700

65101 Vaasa 210 Englanti

Julkaisun nimike

Kuluttajan ensivaiheen luottamuksen muodostumisprosessi verkkokaupankäyn- nissä

Tiivistelmä

Sähköisen liiketoiminnan yleistymisen myötä Internetissä kuluttajakauppaa har- joittavien toimijoiden määrä on lisääntynyt voimakkaasti. Verkkokaupankäynnin erityispiirteiden johdosta kuluttajan luottamuksen sähköistä liiketoimintaa kohtaan on katsottu olevan yksi tärkeimmistä tekijöistä liiketoiminnan kehityksessä.

Tutkijat ovat luoneet useita malleja, joissa kuvataan kuluttajan luottamuksen ja erilaisten konstruktioiden välisiä suhteita. Erityisesti kuluttajan luottamusta lisää- viä palveluntarjoajan ja Internet-teknologian ominaisuuksia on tutkittu laajasti.

Lisäksi tutkimuksissa on analysoitu kuluttajan luottamuksesta johtuvia seurauksia (esim. ostohalukkuus, lojaalisuus, kuluttajan sitoutuminen palveluntarjoajaan) sekä kuluttajan henkilökohtaisten ominaisuuksien vaikutusta luottamukseen säh- köistä kaupankäyntiä kohtaan.

Tämän tutkimuksen tavoitteena on tutkia miten kuluttaja rakentaa ensivaiheen luottamusta sähköistä liiketoimintaa kohtaan. Tutkimus tehdään kuluttajan näkö- kulmasta. Tutkimuksen tavoitteen saavuttamiseksi tutkimuksessa hyödynnetään sekä laadullisia että määrällisiä tutkimusmenetelmiä. Tutkimuksen lopputulokse- na rakennetaan malli, joka kuvaa kuluttajan ensivaiheen luottamuksen muodos- tumisprosessia sähköisessä kaupankäynnissä.

Mallissa kuluttajan luottamuksen nähdään rakentuvan kuluttajan affektiivisten sekä kognitiivisten luottamuksen muodostumistrategioiden sekä luotettavuusarvi- on kohteena olevan toimijan ominaisuuksien ja käytöksen yhteisvaikutuksesta.

Lisäksi mallissa esitetään kuluttajan henkilökohtaisten ominaisuuksien ja sähköi- sen liiketoiminnan kontekstin vaikuttavan kuluttajan luottamuksen muodostumis- prosessiin.

Asiasanat

(4)

(5)

Publisher Date of publication

Vaasan yliopisto May 2009

Author(s) Type of publication Monograph

Name and number of series Kyösti Pennanen

Acta Wasaensia, 201 Contact information ISBN

978–952–476–257–1 ISSN

0355–2667, 1235–7871 Number of

pages

Language University of Vaasa

Faculty of Business Studies Department of Marketing P.O. Pox 700

FI–65101 Vaasa, Finland

210 English Title of publication

The initial stages of consumer trust building in e-commerce: a study on Finnish consumers

Abstract

The rapid development of e-commerce in the late 1990’s increased significantly the amount of e-vendors. Due to the nature of e-commerce, consumer trust in e- vendor and in Internet infrastructure in general are seen as important factors in facilitating successful relationships between consumers and different actors in e- commerce.

The widespread interest in consumer trust in e-commerce concretises in several studies dealing with the relationships between consumer e-trust and different constructs. One stream of research emphasizes the antecedents (e.g. e-vendor’s brand or structural characteristics of the Internet) to consumer e-trust. Researchers in another stream of research have been interested in the consequences of consumer e-trust (e.g. intention to purchase, loyalty and commitment). In addition, the role of consumer characteristics in consumer e-trust has inspired researchers.

The main research question of the present study is: How consumers build initial trust in e-commerce? The study applies consumers’ perspective. To answer the research question, both qualitative and quantitative methods are utilized. As a consequence, an integrative model for consumers’ initial e-trust building process is developed. According to the model, consumers’ e-trust development is depend- ent on consumers’ affective and cognitive e-trust building efforts and trustee’s behaviour. In addition, the model suggests that consumer personal characteristics, such as personal values, gender or experience in using e-commerce, and the context of e-commerce influence the breadth and depth of consumers’ cognitive and affective e-trust building.

Keywords

trust, trustworthiness, e-commerce, e-trust, consumer behaviour

(6)

(7)

Acknowledgements

Trust between different actors is important in every relationship. I have been fortunate to be a part of several relationships that include trust during my Ph.D.

studies. For that reason, I feel that I should express my gratitude to several persons and institutions which have helped me on my way to becoming a researcher.

I have to thank my supervisor professor Harri Luomala for his outstanding support from the beginning of my studies till the end. He has unselfishly shared his knowledge and wisdom even in the times when he has been awfully busy with other obligations. He has patiently taught and guided me during the process. I have always had trust in him and I think his actions demonstrate that he has also had trust in me. As a result, I have finally reached the goal. So, thank you!

I received valuable comments from the reviewers, professor Heikki Karjaluoto and professor Hannu Kuusela. I want to thank them for their efforts in raising the quality of my work.

Several other persons owe my gratitude. Dr Tarja Tiainen has been a great help for me. Without prejudice, she adopted me as a part of her eHat-research group and she has always found time to comment and constructively criticise my article drafts and research plans. Thank you! Also my colleagues in eHat-group, Dr Minna Paakki, Phil.Lic. Taina Kaapu, M.Sc. Tero Saarenpää and M.Sc. Emma- Reetta Koivunen deserve my gratitude. It has always been a great pleasure to have inspiring discussions with you, not to mention the several informal events we have participated together. I wish to thank the members of professor Luomala’s research group; especially M.Sc. Rami Paasovaara who has helped me in several issues during my studies. Finally, I want to thank Deborah Ruuskanen who has made my English more understandable. Any remaining grammatical flaws are due to my last minute changes.

Several institutions have funded my research. Finnish Cultural Foundation, Foundation for Economic Education and University of Vaasa have provided financial support during my studies. I am grateful to all of them and flattered, because they considered my work worth financing for.

Finally, I would like to thank all the respondents who took part in my interviews and vignette-study. Also the anonymous reviewers who have given valuable comments regarding the individual articles in this thesis deserve my gratitude.

(8)

(9)

Figures

Figure 1. The logic of the study...4

Figure 2. Location of the study in regard to relevant previous research. ...6

Figure 3. Summary of the e-trust literature. ...25

Figure 4. An integrative model for consumers’ initial e-trust building process...60

Tables

Table 1. Sociologists’ definitions of trust. ...9

Table 2. Social psychologists’ definitions of trust. ...10

Table 3. Psychologists’ definitions of trust...11

Table 4. Management researchers’ definitions of trust. ...13

Table 5. Marketing researchers’ definitions of trust. ...17

Table 6. e-Trust researchers’ definitions of trust. ...27

Table 7. Dimensions of trustworthiness in the conventional trust literature..31

Table 8. Dimensions of trustworthiness given in the e-trust literature. ...32

Table 9. Summary of different disciplines’ views of trust...39

Table 10. Individual articles’ samples and time of data collection...49

(11)

THE ARTICLES COMPRISING THE MAIN BODY OF THE STUDY

1. Pennanen, K., Paakki, M.-K. & Kaapu, T. (2008). Consumers’ views on trust, risk, privacy and security in e-commerce: a qualitative analysis. In T.

Kautonen & H. Karjaluoto (Eds). Trust and New Technologies: Marketing and Management on the Internet and Mobile Media. Cheltenham, UK and Lyme, US: Edward Elgar. 108–123.

Reprinted with kind permission by Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd

2. Pennanen, K., Tiainen, T. & Luomala, H. T. (2007). A qualitative exploration of a consumer’s value-based e-trust building process: a framework

development. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 10: 1, 28–47.

Reprinted with kind permission by Emerald Group Publishing Ltd

3. Pennanen, K. (2006). How consumers build trust in e-commerce: towards a trust formation model. In S. Gonzales & D. Luna (Eds). Latin American Advances in Consumer Research Vol. I. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research. 38–43.

Reprinted with kind permission by Association for Consumer Research 4. Pennanen, K. Is interpersonal and institutional e-trustworthiness equally

important in consumer e-trust development? Implications for consumers’ e- trust building behaviours. The article is under review process (2^nd round) in Journal of Consumer Behaviour.

5. Pennanen, K. (forthcoming in 2009). Consumers’ initial e-trust building process: development of an integrative model and research propositions. In S.

Samu, R. Vaidyanathan & D. Chakravarti (Eds). Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8.

Reprinted with kind permission by Association for Consumer Research

(12)

(13)

1. INTRODUCTION

Trust is seen as one of the most important phenomenon in facilitating successful relationships between different actors (e.g. Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2000). Trust has been studied for decades in several disciplines. For example, sociologists began to study trust as a means to survive in a complex society (Luhmann 1979).

Social psychologists were interested in the role of trust in close personal relationships, due to the high divorce rates in American society in the beginning of the 1980s (e.g. Cook & Wall 1980; Johnson-George & Swap 1982; Holmes &

Rempel 1989). Psychologists have been interested in trust as a personal trait which determines how willing an individual is to trust in other persons or institutions (e.g. Rotter 1967; Frost, Stimpson & Maughan 1978; Good 1988).

Furthermore, marketing researchers have been interested in the links between trust and distribution channels (Young & Wilkinson 1989; Anderson & Narus 1990), as well as studying how trust facilitates long-term relationships and commitment between companies (e.g. Dwyer, Schurr & Oh 1987; Morgan &

Hunt 1994; Guenzi 2002; Humphries & Wilding 2004). In management research, trust is studied as a phenomenon that enhances business performance, for example, allow employees to work more efficiently (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman 1995), predict satisfaction in organizational decision making (Driscoll 1978) or enhance confidence in partner cooperation (Das & Teng 1998).

Forrester research Inc. calculated that US online retail reached 175 billion dollars in 2007 and it will grow to 335 billion dollars in 2012 (Forrester 2008). Despite the significant growth of online shopping, consumers still perceive threats included in the e-commerce. For example, the lack of security regarding paying by credit card was found to be the main reason why consumers are not willing to use credit card in online context (eMarketer 2009). Thus, consumer trust in e- commerce could be considered as important phenomenon from academians’, but also from practitioners’ perspective to facilitate successful online shopping. To answer the need to understand the phenomenon, trust studies were expanded to include e-commerce at the end of the 1990s (Ratnasingham 1998; Jarvenpaa &

Tractinsky 1999). Most of the e-trust studies were conducted in the information systems disciplines. For example, the relationship between the Davis (1989) Technology Acceptance Model and consumer e-trust inspired several IS researchers (e.g. Gefen, Karahanna & Straub 2003a; Pavlou 2003). In addition to IS researchers, also consumer researchers found the phenomenon important, which has concretised in several studies into consumer e-trust (e.g. Garbarino &

Lee 2003; Yousafzai, Pallister & Foxall 2005; Yang et al. 2006). After a decade

(14)

consumer trust in e-commerce (e.g. Tan & Thoen 2000–2001; Lee & Turban 2001 McKnight, Choudhury & Kacmar 2002a; Tan & Sutherland 2004); 2) the antecedents to consumer e-trust (e.g. Garbarino & Lee 2003; Gefen & Straub 2004); 3) the role of consumer characteristics in e-trust (e.g. Kolsaker & Payne 2002; Gefen & Heart 2006); and 4) the consequences of consumer e-trust (e.g. So

& Sculli 2002; Yoon 2002; Ratnasingham & Pavlou 2003).

Most of the previous studies deal with trustee’s (a trustee is defined as the target of consumer trust, for example, an e-vendor or some institution such as the society in which the e-commerce occurs) attributes and their influence on consumer perception of e-trustworthiness and the consequences of that perception. Contrary, consumers’ behaviour has not reached as much attention, which generates a hazard that research leads to somewhat one-sided view on understanding how consumers’ overall e-trust develops. The major problem with such a view is the implication that the consumer is a weak-willed object immediately affected by trustees’ e-trust increasing behaviour. It also contradicts the vast research available on consumer behaviour (e.g. consumer decision- making), which indicates the opposite by suggesting that consumers are capable of making well-considered, deliberate decisions. Thus, there is a need to do research leading to a more multifaceted view on how consumer e-trust develops.

1.1 Research question, objectives and organisation of the study

This study focuses on how consumers build trust in e-commerce. The phenomenon will be mainly viewed from consumer’s viewpoint. Formally stated, the main research question in this study is: How consumers build initial trust in e- commerce? As sub-questions we strive for answering: What consumer trust in e- commerce is? What are the antecedents to consumer trust building in e- commerce? What are the consequences of consumer trust building in e- commerce?

The research questions are pursued to answer through five objectives: The first objective is to review the literature regarding conventional- and e-commerce trust research in order to examine what concept of trust means. Also close concepts to trust and their relationships with trust are examined in the literature review. The second objective has two distinct but closely related parts: this objective studies consumer’s perceptions and values by first (Objective 2a) looking at how consumers perceive risk, trust, privacy and security in e-commerce, and then (Objective 2b) investigating how the consumers’ values affect the process of

(15)

developing e-trust. The third objective is to develop a tentative model of how consumers build e-trust. The fourth objective is to analyse the effect of interpersonal and institutional e-trustworthiness on consumer e-trust building behaviour. The fifth objective is to create a conceptual model and propositions for consumers’ initial e-trust building behaviour.

The study is organised as follows: The study begins with the introduction of different approaches to trust from five different disciplines; namely sociology, social psychology, psychology, management, and marketing. After that, a review of the most recent literature pertaining to e-trust is provided. This is followed by a discussion of concepts related to trust (risk and e-trustworthiness). In addition, different views of trust development are analysed and the concept of initial e-trust is defined. The review of the literature ends with a summary and the definition of trust within the scope of this study. Also a view on the relationship between risk and e-trust as well as e-trustworthiness and e-trust will be discussed. The study continues by an introduction of the methodological choices and the five individual articles included in this study. Finally, a discussion of study’s contribution both to the e-trust and the conventional trust research will be carried out.

1.2 Logic and location of the study in relation to current theory

This study consists of an introduction and five individual articles. While each of these articles could stand alone as a complete study in its own right, each succeeding article grows out of and is closely related to the article that came before it. The final article summarises the findings of the four other articles.

Figure 1 illustrates the role of each individual part of this study in the light of the study purpose and objectives.

As shown in Figure 1, the present study is composed of five main sections, which combine to achieve the study’s purpose and objectives. Section 1, the literature review, serves as background for the five individual articles which form the main body of the study: it also demonstrates the need for studying consumer e-trust building and provides an overview on the concept of trust as defined and used in different disciplines. In addition, Section 1 gives the definition of ‘trust’ used within the scope of the present study and explains the major concepts used in this study in order to help the evaluation of the individual articles. Section 1 concludes with a brief summary of the four articles and a discussion of the present study’s contribution to the field.

(16)

Figure 1. The logic of the study.

Section 2 is exploratory in nature, consisting of Article 1 and Article 2 of the five articles that comprise the main body of the study. Article 1 relates to Objective 2a

Section 1. Review of the Literature

Objective 1.

To examine what trust is and how it is related to other concepts.

Introduction

Section 2. Exploration

Objective 2a

To study how consumers perceive risk, trust, privacy and security in e-commerce.

Article 1 Objective 2b

To study how consumers’ values affect the e-trust development process.

Article 2

Section 3. Tentative Model

Objective 3

To develop a tentative model of how consumers build e-trust.

Article 3

Section 4. Partial Verification of the Tentative Model

Objective 4

To analyse the effect of interpersonal and institutional e-trustworthiness on consumer e-trust building behaviour.

Article 4

Section 5. Elaboration of Integrated Model

Objective 5

To develop a conceptual model and propositions for consumers’ initial e-trust building behaviour.

Article 5

(17)

and empirically investigates the four concepts (e-trust, consumer perceived risks, privacy and security), considered important in the e-trust literature. Article 1 emphasises the need for consumer-specific e-trust research and suggests that consumers do not understand the central concepts regarding e-trust in the way that previous e-trust studies suggest. The approach taken in Article 2, which fulfils objective 2b, is a qualitative exploration related to consumers’ value-based e-trust building. The second article introduces consumers’ e-trust building behaviour and serves as background for more thorough examination of the phenomenon.

Section 3 consists of Article 3 and fulfils the third objective of the present study by investigating consumer e-trust building behaviour more in depth. At the end of Section 3, a model describing how consumer e-trust is built is developed, based on the empirical evidence and conceptual elaboration. This part of the study introduces several mechanisms that consumers have at their disposal and may use to build e-trust. The findings of Article 3 imply that more research is needed to verify these mechanisms and to discover how they are actually used in practice.

Section 4, which consists of Article 4, follows on from and is based on Section 3 (Article 3). In this Section, the relative importance of interpersonal and institutional e-trustworthiness in consumer e-trust building is studied and the mechanisms for building consumer e-trust that were proposed in Article 3 are approached using quantitative data and statistical methods. This fulfils Objective 4.

The final part of the study consists of Article 5, reporting on a study aimed at fulfilling Objective 5. Article 5 combines the empirical findings of the present study and the previous literature on trust, e-trust and consumer behaviour. This leads to an integrated model for consumers’ initial e-trust building which is developed and presented at the Article 5. In addition, five propositions are introduced which could serve as starting points for further research.

The present study lies within the overlapping conjunction of three theoretical discussions (see Figure 2 below). E-trust research is an outgrowth of conventional trust research. In particular, the five fields of sociology, social psychology, psychology, management, and marketing have contributed significantly to e-trust research. The subject of this study is the consumer e-trust building process. For that reason, findings from consumer research will also be used here. The third theoretical basis for the present study is previous research into consumer e-trust.

As Figure 2 below indicates, the present study lies within the small segment where these three bodies of research conjoin and overlap.

(18)

Figure 2. Location of the study in regard to relevant previous research.

1.3 Conceptual phases for trust

Trust has been studied extensively for several decades in several disciplines. For example, in her meta-analysis of trust research, Ebert (2007) found over 800 articles published in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals between 1966 and 2006. Surprisingly (or perhaps due to the wide range of research on ‘trust’ carried out in several disciplines), the literature on conventional trust is in some confusion regarding what ‘trust’ actually is. For example, Hosmer (1995: 380) argues that there exists “a widespread lack of agreement on a suitable definition of the concept.” Mayer et al. (1995) state that the literature lacks, for example, suitable definitions of trust and distinctions between trust and concepts closely related to it. For that reason, a review of the relevant literature on ‘trust’, including the view of trust presented by researchers from the fields of sociology, psychology, social psychology, management, and marketing, are presented below.

Moreover, an understanding of how trust is treated in these different disciplines is of importance, because the basis for e-trust research lies in the conventional trust literature. For example, the elements of consumer e-trust (interpersonal,

(19)

institutional and dispositional e-trust) origin from the previous research done in different disciplines. In the end, we consider that conducting the literature review contributes on readers’ understanding of the different (sometimes confusing) concepts used in the five articles included in this thesis. Also the distinction and the relationships between the concepts are made visible in the following discussion in order to ease readers’ evaluations of the articles. This means that the main role of the following literature review is to serve as an introduction to the vast trust literature. We do not strive for deeper analysis of the literature but more in a description of how the concept of trust is treated in different disciplines. The actual research done in a scope of this study is introduced in the individual articles. However, in the end of the literature review, the most important features (as seen by the author) of trust literature are summed up to help the reader to understand the main concepts of this study and their relationships. The other role of the literature review (especially consumer e-trust literature review) is to bring forth the one-sided view regarding consumer e-trust building and for its part to justify the existence of the current study.

The main method to conduct the literature review was searching research articles from EBSCOhost, Emerald, ProQuest, JSTOR, ScienceDirect and Wiley Interscience databases. The keywords used to search the articles were trust, e- trust, trust in e-commerce, online trust, consumer e-trust, trustworthiness, consumer risk perception and consumer perceived risks. Also modifications of those keywords were used. Other important method to review the literature was the usage of different articles reference-lists in order to find articles that were not found via the previously mentioned databases by using keywords. We also browsed through some of the top-class marketing (e.g. Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, European Journal of Marketing, Psychology &

Marketing and Journal of Retailing) and IS journals (e.g. MIS Quarterly, Information & Management, International Journal of Electronic Commerce and Information Systems Research) to get access to the most influential research regarding consumer e-trust.

1.3.1 Trust as a theoretical concept in sociology

Research in the field of sociology acknowledges trust as an important phenomenon which allows different actors to engage in relationships with each other (e.g. Lewis & Weigert 1985). According to some sociologists, one function of trust is to reduce complexity in a society (Luhmann 1979; Lewis & Weigert 1985). These researchers agree with Simmel (1964), who argues that if trust would not exist in a society, the resultant enormous complexity would make

(20)

actions almost impossible. As an example, Bok (1978) argues that if trust disappears, then institutions collapse.

Two main trends in sociological trust research can be identified. Firstly, sociologists have studied the antecedents to trust. These antecedents are divided into two categories, namely ‘structural assurance’ and ‘situational normality’

(McKnight et al. 2002a). Structural assurance means that the person who trusts, called the ‘trustor’ in the literature, believes in, for example, guarantees, regulations and promises made by the society (Zucker 1986; Shapiro 1987, adapted from McKnight et al. 2002a: 339). Situational normality, in turn, means that the society is in proper working order and the trustor may act successfully (Garfinkel 1963; Baier 1986, adapted from McKnight et al. 2002a: 339).

Secondly, sociologists acknowledge that trust has consequences. For example, Barber (1983) states that trust facilitates social ordering and Gambetta (1988) argues that trust is important in terms of cooperation development.

Some typical features of trust are described in the sociology literature (see, Table 1.). First, sociologists emphasize that trust can only exist in situations including uncertainty (Lewis & Weigert 1985; Gambetta 1988; Coleman 1990; Möllering 2001). Secondly, trust is seen either as a function which facilitates interdependence and behaviour between trustor and trustee (e.g. Bok 1978;

Barber 1983; Lewis & Weigert 1985; Gambetta 1988; Möllering 2001) or it is seen as a psychological state which emphasizes the trustor’s willingness to be vulnerable (Coleman 1990). Third, trust has antecedents (Gambetta 1988) and consequences (Bok 1978). Finally, in sociology, the trustors’ trust is defined as being placed in institutions, not in other individuals (e.g. Bok 1978). For that reason, the sociologists’ view of trust is commonly labelled as ‘institutional’ trust (e.g. McKnight, Cummings & Chervany 1998).

(21)

Table 1. Sociologists’ definitions of trust.

Author(s) Definition

Bok (1978: 25)

“Trust in some degree of veracity functions as a foundation of relations among human beings; when this trust shatters or wears away, institutions collapse.”

Barber (1983)

Trust has two functions: trust has the general function of social ordering in providing cognitive and moral maps for actors and systems in relationships. A second and more dynamic function of trust is social control.

Lewis & Weigert (1985)

Trust is indispensable in social relationships and includes cognitive-, emotional- and behavioural aspects and dimensions, an unavoidable element of risk, and potential doubt.

Gambetta (1988: 217)

“Trust, or (symmetrically) distrust, is a particular level of the subjective

probability with which an agent assesses that another agent or group of agents will perform a particular action, both before he can monitor such action (or independently of his capacity to ever be able to monitor it) and in a context in which it affects his own action. When we say we trust or that someone is trustworthy, we implicitly mean that the probability that he will perform an action that is beneficial or at least not detrimental to us is high enough for us to consider engaging in some form of cooperation with him.”

Coleman (1990: 100)

“Trust includes voluntarily placing resources at the disposal of another or transferring control over resources to another.”

1.3.2 Trust as a theoretical concept in social psychology

Social psychologists treat trust as an important concept that facilitates close relationships between actors (Harvey & Omarzu 1997; Miller & Rempel 2004).

(22)

Unlike the sociologists, social psychologists emphasize trust between individuals.

For example, Miller & Rempel (2004) studied trust in a context of married couples. Although the view of social psychologists differs from that of sociologists, there exist similarities as well. For example, social psychologists emphasise that trust is only relevant in situations including uncertainty, and that it facilitates relationships (Deutsch 1958; Schlenker, Helm & Tedeschi 1973).

Table 2. Social psychologists’ definitions of trust.

Deutsch (1958: 266)

“An individual may be said to have trust in occurrence of an event if he expects its occurrence and his expectation leads to behavior which he perceives to have greater negative motivational

consequences if the expectation is not confirmed than positive motivational consequences if it is confirmed.”

Schlenker, Helm & Tedeschi (1973:

419)

“Trust is reliance upon information received from another person about uncertain environmental states and their accompanying outcomes in a risky situation.”

Cook and Wall (1980: 39)

“Trust is the extent to which one is willing to ascribe good intentions to and have confidence in the words and actions of other people.”

Holmes & Rempel (1989: 188) “Trust is confidence that one will find what is desired from others, rather than what is feared.”

Table 2 presents four social psychologists’ definitions of trust. In summary, the main themes in the social psychologists’ views of trust are: First, trust only exists in an uncertain situation (Deutsch 1958; Schlenker et al. 1973; Cook & Wall 1980; Holmes & Rempel 1989). Second, most of the definitions stress that trust is an individual’s psychological state, in which they believe that the trustee will act in a desirable manner (Schlenker et al. 1973; Cook & Wall 1980; Holmes &

Rempel 1989). However, Deutsch (1958) defines trust as behaviour. Third, trust has antecedents (Schlenker et al. 1973) and consequences (Deutsch 1958).

Finally, a trustor’s trust is placed in some individual trustee. Thus, the social psychologists’ view of trust is commonly labelled as ‘interpersonal’ trust (e.g.

Tan & Sutherland 2004).

(23)

1.3.3 Trust as a theoretical concept in psychology

The psychologists’ view of trust (e.g. Rotter 1967; Frost et al. 1978; Good 1988) emphasizes the trustors’ willingness to trust (Rousseau et al. 1998). Psychologists have been interested in how willingness to trust develops and have found that, for example, experiences in life can have an effect on a predisposition to trust (Rotter 1967). For example, a child who has been constantly disappointed in life would grow up with a general suspicion of other peoples’ motives and actions, while a child with a better childhood would be more willing to trust in other people in general (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2000).

According to psychologists, a trustor’s disposition to trust (trustor’s belief that other persons are generally well-meaning and reliable), and a trustor’s trusting stance (the belief that whether others are well-meaning and reliable or not, a better result in relationships will be obtained when the others are treated as trustworthy) taken together determine the level of trust the trustor has in others (e.g. Wrightsmann 1966; Rotter 1967; McKnight et al. 1998). A disposition to trust is seen as affecting an individual’s behaviour. Researchers have found that individuals with a high disposition to trust will act in a more trustworthy manner than will individuals with a low disposition to trust, even in a situation where untrustworthy behaviour would be beneficial (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2000).

According to Wang & Emurian (2005), although the majority of studies of trust in the field of psychology concentrate on trust between individuals (c.f. social psychologists’ view), the role of dispositional trust in individual trust in institutions has also been studied (c.f. sociologists’ view).

Table 3. Psychologists’ definitions of trust.

Rotter (1967: 651)

“Trust is an expectancy held by an individual or a group that the word, promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon.”

Frost, Stimpson & Maughan (1978:

103)

“Trust is an expectancy held by an individual that the behavior of another person or a group will be altruistic and personally beneficial.”

Good (1988),

adapted from Blomqvist (1997: 273)

“Trust is based on an individual’s theory as to how another person will perform on some future occasion, as a function of that target person’s current and previous claims, either implicit or explicit, as to how they will behave.”

(24)

As the psychologists’ definitions of trust given in Table 3 reveal, some main features of psychologists’ view on trust can be identified: First, trust appears in situations where unfavourable outcomes may appear (e.g. Frost et al. 1978). Thus, the relationship between risk and trust is acknowledged among psychologists.

Second, trust is treated as an individual’s psychological state (expectation or individual’s theory) (Rotter 1967; Frost et al. 1973; Good 1988). Third, there exist antecedents to trust, such as current and previous claims (Good 1988).

Finally, psychologists share both sociologists’ and social psychologists’ views regarding the target of trust. That is, trust may be placed in both individuals and/or institutions (Rotter 1967; Frost et al. 1978).

1.3.4 Trust as a theoretical concept in management

Trust is studied widely in management research. Particularly in the 1990s, trust research intensified, because trust was found to be of importance to business performance (Mayer et al. 1995; Mooradian, Renzl & Martzler 2006). Some trends in trust research can be identified in the management literature. One research trend emphasises trust within organisations. For example, Driscoll (1978) studied trust and organisational decision-making. In addition, other areas which have attracted the interest of management researchers are: the role of trust in managerial relationships (Larson 1992; Atkinson & Butcher 2003), in organisational innovativeness (Ellonen, Blomqvist & Puumalainen 2008), in leadership (Gillespie & Mann 2004) and trust formation through interaction and exchange in organisations (Nugent & Abolafia 2006).

Another area of emphasis in managerial trust research is the role of trust in relationships between organisations. For example, Chow & Holden (1997) found that trust generates loyalty between partners and protects companies from the costs that would result from changing partners. Das & Teng (1998) also emphasized the role played in partner cooperation by trust and confidence. In addition to those just mentioned, other areas of trust research have emerged within the context of management. These include, for example, the relationship between trust and risk (Das & Teng 2001; Das & Teng 2004), formation of initial trust between organisations (McKnight et al. 1998; Vlaar, Van den Bosch &

Volberda 2007), the role of a political system in employees’ trust (Pearce, Branyiczki & Bigley 2000), and the relationship between trust and distrust (Bigley & Pearce 1998).

What is interesting is that relatively little empirical research regarding trust per se has been done in the field of management (Atkinson & Butcher 2003). Instead, a vast number of studies have been carried out to develop different conceptual

(25)

models that investigate trust in relation to other factors and concepts. For example, Ferrin, Bligh & Kohles (2007) developed a model that illustrates the relationship between trust, monitoring and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup interactions. Bhattacharya, Devinney & Pillutla (1998) introduced a formal model of trust based on outcomes and Das & Teng (1998) proposed a model to explain the relationship of trust and control in strategic alliances.

Finally, McKnight et al. (1998) developed a model to explain initial trust formation in new organisational relationships.

Table 4. Management researchers’ definitions of trust.

Mayer, Davis & Schoorman (1995:

712)

“The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.”

Bhattacharya, Devinney & Pillutla (1998: 462)

“Trust is an expectancy of positive (or non-negative) outcomes that one can receive based on the expected action of another party in an interaction

characterized by uncertainty.”

McKnight, Cummings & Chervany (1998: 474)

“Trust means that one believes in, and is willing to depend on, another party.

Trust as a concept can be broken into two concepts: 1) trusting intention, meaning that one is willing to depend on the other person in a given situation and 2) trusting beliefs, meaning that one believes the other person is benevolent, competent, honest, or predictable in a situation.”

Rousseau et al. (1998: 395)

“Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another.”

Table 4 presents five definitions of trust given in the management literature.

Management researchers’ definitions of trust share similar features of trust with other disciplines. First, trust exists only in a situation involving risk (Mayer et al.

1995; Bhattacharya et al. 1998; Bigley & Pierce 1998). Second, trust is a psychological state of the trustor (an expectation or a belief) (Bhattacharya et al.

(26)

1998; McKnight et al. 1998; Rousseau et al. 1998). Third, trust has consequences, such as a willingness to be vulnerable (Mayer et al. 1995), and antecedents, such as positive expectations (Rousseau et al. 1998). Finally, trust is directed in some other party. Management researchers’ definitions of trust do not specify whether the target of trust is an individual or some institution. However, trust is studied between organizations (e.g. Chow & Holden 1997; Das & Teng 1998), which refer to interpersonal trust, but also between societies and organizations (e.g.

Pearce et al. 2000), which refers to institutional trust. Thus, it is obvious that management researchers acknowledge that trust could be directed in interpersonal and institutional trustee.

1.3.5 Trust as a theoretical concept in marketing

Marketing researchers have studied trust from various aspects for decades. One branch of research emphasises trust in the context of distribution channels (e.g.

Young & Wilkinson 1989; Anderson & Narus 1990; Canning & Hanmer-Lloyd 2007). These studies stress the role of power and conflict in the channel relationships, and the role of trust in those relationships (Young & Wilkinson 1989). In general, researchers have found that the more power the other party has, the less trust would be involved in the relationship (Dwyer et al. 1987; Anderson

& Weitz 1989).

Perhaps the most comprehensive research regarding trust in marketing literature deals with the relationships between buyer and seller (e.g. Anderson & Narus 1990; Ganesan 1994; Morgan & Hunt 1994; Garbarino & Johnson 1999; Guenzi 2002; Humphries & Wilding 2004; Kingshot & Pecotich 2007). These studies emerged in the late 1980s and were driven by the fact that trust could reduce high switching costs between companies. A fundamental argument made by marketing researchers studying relationships stresses that trust is one of the most important foundations for future collaboration between firms (Dwyer et al. 1987; Ganesan 1994; Morgan & Hunt 1994).

Studies of relationship marketing have investigated, for example, the impact of psychological constructs on trust and commitment (Kingshott & Pecotich 2007), the role of trust in long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships (Ganesan 1994), and the relationship between trust and commitment (Morgan & Hunt 1994). Moreover, several antecedents and consequences of trust have been studied in regard to relationship marketing. Antecedents include: the firm’s reputation, length of the relationship, salesperson’s expertise and power (Doney

& Cannon 1997), shared values (Morgan & Hunt 1994), confidentiality, expertise, sincerity (Moormann, Deshpandé & Zaltman 1993), ethical sales behaviour

(27)

(Roman 2003), customer satisfaction with the company (Selnes 1998; Roman 2003), benevolence, and credibility (Sichtmann 2007). Regarding the consequences of trust, Grayson & Ambler (1999) found that trust facilitates commitment and increases interaction quality, involvement and performance.

Moormann, Zaltman & Deshpandé (1992) studied trust between providers and users of market research. They found that trust between the two parties enhanced the quality of the interaction and the market researcher’s level of involvement and had an indirect effect on research utilisation. Roman (2003) found that trust in a company led to loyalty. Finally, Wang & Huff (2007) found that a trustor’s integrity-based, perceived likelihood of violation decreased trust.

Trust has been studied in several other marketing contexts as well, including: trust in service settings (Crosby, Evans & Cowles 1990; Roman 2003; Doney, Barry &

Abratt 2007), in industrial buying settings (Doney & Cannon 1997), in terms of brand and trust (Ambler 1997; Delgado-Ballester & Munuera-Aleman 2001;

Elliot & Yannopoulou 2007; Sichtmann 2007), in negotiation situations (Mintu- Wimsatt, Garci & Calantone 2005), and in different organizational levels (Fang et al. 2008). Moreover, researchers have also been interested in: differences in the manufacturers’ and the purchasing executives’ views on how trust could be built (Hawes, Mast & Swan 1989), cultural effects on trust and business relationships (Harris & Dibben 1999; Zabkar & Brensic 2004), the relationships between satisfaction, product satisfaction and store satisfaction (Grossman 1999), and the influence of perceptions of trustworthiness and trusting behaviours on satisfaction and task performance (Smith & Barclay 1997).

Interestingly, consumer researchers have ignored trust. A review of the literature reveals only a few studies that deal with consumer trust. Sichtmann (2007) found that trust has a significant effect on purchase intentions and on consumers’ WOM (Word of Mouth) behaviour. Erdem & Swait (2004) studied how brand credibility influenced brand choice. They found that the perceived brand credibility increases consumers’ willingness to choose a given brand. They also found that consumers’

perception of trustworthiness, rather than their perception of expertise, affected consumer choices and brand consideration. Delgado-Ballester & Munuera- Aleman (2001) studied brand trust and its role in consumer loyalty and commitment to the seller. Their results show that brand trust facilitates consumer loyalty, especially in the high involvement contexts. Additionally, Elliot &

Yannopoulou (2007) studied brand, trust and risk. They found that trust is especially important in terms of symbolic brands and high involvement buying situations, in which the perception of risk is high. No such effect was found in terms of functional brands involving little risk. Finally, Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2001) were interested in consumers’ brand trust effect on consumer purchase

(28)

loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. They found that consumer brand trust significantly increased both dimensions of loyalty.

Brand trust seems to be the most popular topic among consumer researchers.

However, trust studies have been conducted in some other contexts as well.

FitzPatrick, Friend & Costley (2005) found that gender has an effect on consumer trust in the context of health care. Schurr & Ozanne (1986) studied how the seller’s tough bargaining, and trust, affect consumer buying-behaviour and the buyer-seller relationship. They found that when a consumer believes that a seller will use tough bargaining methods and, at the same time, the consumer perceives the seller to be untrustworthy, then the relationship will be unfavourable to the seller. In contrast, if the consumer expects tough bargaining but (s)he perceives the seller as trustworthy, then the consumer would be more integrative, and less distributive in their relationship with the seller. Singh & Sirdesmukh (2000) proposed a conceptual model for the role of agency in relation to trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction and loyalty judgments. They proposed that the pre-encounter trust affects consumer satisfaction with the seller. Moreover, they suggest that experiences with the seller have an effect on post-encounter trust, which, in turn, has an effect on consumers’ loyalty judgements. Finally, Sirdesmukh, Singh & Sabol (2002) studied consumer trust, value and loyalty in relational exchanges. They found that perceived trustworthiness influences consumer trust, which, in turn, has a direct effect on value and a moderating effect on loyalty.

As can be seen in the above examples, consumer trust has received only scarce attention from consumer researchers. Most of the studies involved consumer brand trust, or trust as an antecedent to consumer loyalty: these topics are similar to those studied in the B2B (Business to Business)-context. It is interesting that some basic issues, such as the role of consumer demographics in trustworthiness perception, or the role of consumer decision-making in consumer trust development, have not interested consumer researchers.

(29)

Table 5. Marketing researchers’ definitions of trust.

Anderson & Narus (1990: 45)

“Trust is the firm’s belief that another company will perform actions that will result in positive outcomes for the firm, as well as not take unexpected action that would result in negative outcomes for the firm.”

Moorman, Deshpandé & Zaltman (1993: 82)

“Trust is a willingness to rely in an exchange partner in whom one has confidence.”

Morgan & Hunt (1994: 23) “Trust exists when one party has confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity.”

Doney & Cannon (1997: 36) “Trust is the perceived credibility and benevolence of a target of trust.”

Sirdesmukh, Singh & Sabol (2002: 17)

“Trust is the expectation held by the consumer that the service provider is dependable and can be relied on to deliver on its promises.”

Table 5 presents five marketing researchers’ definitions of trust. Definitions differ somewhat from definitions in other fields. First, unlike the scholars in other disciplines, marketing researchers do not emphasize the role of risk in their definitions. Only Anderson & Narus (1990) acknowledge the possibility of some negative outcome of trust. However, although the definitions do not contain risk, marketing researchers have acknowledged risk as a vital part of trust (e.g. Swan et al. 1988; Kumar, Scheer & Steenkamp 1995). Second, marketing researchers’

definitions of trust suggest that trust is a psychological state of the trustor (belief, willingness to rely, confidence or expectation) (Anderson & Narus 1990;

Moorman et al. 1993; Morgan & Hunt 1994; Doney & Cannon 1997; Sirdesmukh et al. 2002). Third, trust has antecedents, such as perceived reliability and integrity (Morgan & Hunt 1994), and consequences, such as positive outcomes (Anderson & Narus 1990). Finally, trust is directed toward some other party.

Marketing researchers’ definitions of trust do not specify whether the trustee is an individual actor or some institution. Most of the studies of trust conducted in the field of marketing concentrate on B2B or B2C-relationships. Thus, it is evident that the marketing literature acknowledges the concept of interpersonal trust.

However, some trust-studies involving cultural issues (Harris & Dibben 1999;

Zabkar & Brensic 2004) indicate that institutional trust is also taken into account in the research on trust carried out in the field of marketing.

(30)

1.4 Consumer trust in e-commerce

At the end of the previous century, alongside the rise of the Internet, trust studies were expanded into e-commerce (Ratnasingham 1998; Jarvenpaa & Tractinsky 1999). Particularly consumer e-trust was considered to be an important issue.

Most of the studies were conducted in the information systems disciplines (e.g.

Gefen et al. 2003a; Pavlou 2003), but consumer researchers have also shown interest in consumer e-trust (e.g. Garbarino & Lee 2003; Yousafzai et al. 2005;

Yang et al. 2006).

There is similar confusion in e-trust research as that in conventional trust research in regard to the nature and definition of trust (e.g. Serva, Benamati & Fuller 2005). What to include within the concept of ‘trust’ appears to be particularly problematic. For example, Bhattacherjee (2002) treats trustworthiness as a dimension of trust, although some others consider trustworthiness to be a characteristic of a trustee and an antecedent to trust. Similar confusion occurs in Gefen & Straub (2004), who state that trust includes three distinct trusting beliefs (all of which beliefs refer to trustworthiness). Moreover, Kim & Prabhakar (2004) argue that, for example, calculus-based trust is trust, although the concept of calculus-based trust originated within the field of economics, where it means the development of trust by calculating costs and rewards in a financial or economic relationship.

As the above examples demonstrated, there indeed exists confusion related to e- trust. However, if the e-trust literature is analysed it can be divided into four major areas of research.

1. General models, which strive for explaining the phenomenon of consumer e- trust in general (e.g. Tan & Thoen, 2000–2001; Lee & Turban 2001;

McKnight et al. 2002a; Corritore, Kracher & Wiedenbeck 2003; Tan &

Sutherland 2004).

2. Antecedents to consumer e-trust (e.g. Garbarino & Lee 2003; Gefen & Straub 2004; Bart et al. 2005).

3. Consumer characteristics and e-trust (e.g. Kolsaker & Payne 2002; Brown, Poole & Rodgers 2004; Gefen & Heart 2006).

4. Consequences of e-trust (e.g. So & Sculli 2002; Yoon 2002; Ratnasingham &

Pavlou 2003).

These areas will be discussed in more detail in what follows below.

(31)

1.4.1 General models for consumer e-trust

Some e-trust researchers have developed general models for consumer e-trust (e.g. Tan & Thoen 2000–2001; Lee & Turban 2001; McKnight et al. 2002a;

Corritore et al. 2003; Tan & Sutherland 2004). The major contribution of these models is that they combine views on trust presented in several fields, namely social psychology, sociology and psychology, and attempt to provide a general overview of different aspects and concepts regarding consumer trust in e- commerce. For instance, Tan & Thoen (2000–2001), Lee & Turban (2001), McKnight et al. (2002a) and Tan & Sutherland (2004) treat consumer e-trust as a concept which includes interpersonal, institutional and dispositional trust. As the e-trust research has evolved, those three elements of trust have attained a significant position in the e-trust research in explaining the targets of consumer e- trust. They are defined as follows.

Consumer interpersonal e-trust refers to an individual’s trust in another specific party (McKnight & Chervany 2001–2002). The concept of consumer interpersonal e-trust has its origins in social psychology, and stresses consumer trust in some specific e-vendor (Tan & Sutherland 2004). For instance, a manifestation of interpersonal trust is consumer trust in an e-bank, e-bookstore, electronic grocery shop or electronic newspaper.

The concept of consumer institutional e-trust comes from sociology and refers to consumer trust in Internet infrastructure in general or in some other institutional aspect of e-commerce rather than individuals (McKnight et al. 2002a). For example, consumer trust in legal and technical protection (Tan and Sutherland 2004) or in some trusted third party such as Visa (Cheung & Lee 2006) serves as manifestation of institutional e-trust. McKnight et al. (2002a) follow the division of institutional e-trust into two constructs, as presented in the sociology literature.

These two constructs are: situational normality, which refers to proper order and functioning of the Internet environment; and structural assurances, which means that structures such as guarantees and regulations are in place to promote success in e-commerce in the Internet environment (McKnight et al. 2002a).

Consumer dispositional e-trust is the individual’s ability to show trust in general, and is based on the individual’s belief that other people are well meaning and reliable (Tan and Sutherland 2004). As discussed earlier, psychologists divide trust into dispositional trust and trusting stance (see chapter 1.3.3.). This two- dimensional view of dispositional trust is acknowledged in e-trust research as well (McKnight et al. 2002a).

(32)

In addition to discussing the basic concepts regarding consumer e-trust, the authors have studied e-trust in relation to different constructs. In the next chapters these other constructs and their relations to e-trust are reviewed.

1.4.2 Antecedents to consumer e-trust

A second major area of e-trust research deals with the antecedents to consumer e- trust. As in conventional trust research, several different antecedents to consumer trust have been found in the e-commerce context as well. These antecedents may be divided into interpersonal and institutional antecedents. The nature of the following antecedents is that they can increase or decrease consumers’ perception of e-trustworthiness, which contribute to consumer trust.

Several interpersonal antecedents have an effect on consumer e-trust, including e- vendors’ size and reputation (Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky & Vitale 2000), dynamic pricing (Garbarino & Lee 2003), and social presence (Gefen & Straub 2004). Ha (2004) studied the antecedents to consumer brand trust in e-commerce and found that security, high privacy, brand name, WOM and quality of information increased consumer trust. Koehn (2003) in his article about the nature and conditions for online trust suggests that e-vendor’s reputation increases consumer perception of trustworthiness. Kim, Xu & Koh (2004) studied potential and repeat customers in the light of antecedents to e-trust and verified Koehn’s (2003) proposition. They found that e-vendors’ reputation and information quality increased both potential and repeat customers’ e-trust, while the perceived level of service increased only repeat customers’ e-trust. Also Koufaris & Hampton- Sosa (2004) and McKnight, Choudhury & Kacmar (2002b) provided empirical support to Koehn (2003) in initial e-trust settings. In addition to reputation, Koufaris & Hampton-Sosa (2004) found that e-vendor’s willingness to provide customized products and services had significant effect on consumer initial e- trust. Cazier, Shao & St.Louis (2006) found that value congruence increased consumer e-trust while value conflict reduced it. Mukherjee & Nath (2007) tested Morgan & Hunt’s (1994) commitment-trust theory in an online context and found that shared values, communication, privacy and security increased consumer e- trust, while the e-vendor’s opportunistic behaviour decreased it. Casalo, Flavián

& Guinalíu (2007) and Eastlick, Lotz & Warrington (2006) found that the e- vendor’s good reputation and consumer satisfaction increased consumer e-trust.

Srinivasan (2004) suggests in his study that the antecedents to consumer e-trust are: easy access to description of products and services, ease of placing orders, order confirmation, order tracking, and post-sales services. Finally, Pavlou &

Gefen (2004) studied the effectiveness of a feedback mechanism and its impact

(33)

on consumer e-trust. Their results confirm that an effective feedback mechanism increases consumer e-trust.

Several researchers have studied how website characteristics affect consumer interpersonal e-trust. For example, Yoon’s (2002) results suggest that transaction security and site properties served as antecedents to consumer e-trust. Everard &

Galletta (2005–2006) found that presentation flaws such as poor style, incompleteness of the web-site, and typographical, grammatical and factual errors, have significant effects on consumers’ perceived quality of online store, which in turn has a significant effect on consumer e-trust. Flavián, Guinalíu &

Gurrea (2006) studied the relationship between web site quality and consumer e- trust. Their findings confirm that the high quality of a web site contributes significantly to consumer e-trust. Also Hwang & Kim’s (2007) findings indicate similar situation. Hampton-Sosa & Koufaris (2005) were interested in web site usability and web site appeal and their influence on consumer initial e-trust. Their findings provide evidence that web site appeal (web site appeal means consumers’ perception of web site’s usefulness and enjoyment in using web site) has significant effect on consumer e-trust while web site usability did not have similar effect. Roy, Dewitt & Aubert (2001) found that ease of navigation, ease of learning, perceptual limitation, user guidance, and user support within the website served as antecedents to consumer e-trustworthiness perceptions. Wang &

Emurian (2005) studied how interface design factors affect consumer trust in e- vendors. Their results suggest that graphic design (e.g. colours and photographs), content design (e.g. seals of approval and current product information), and social-cue design (e.g. possibility to communicate with the vendor or inclusion of representative photographs) have a significant effect on consumer e-trust.

Moreover, Merrilees & Frye (2003) found that effective interaction between website and consumer enhanced consumer trust; and Pavlou & Dimoka (2006) found that written feedback increased consumer e-trust. Bart et al. (2005) discovered that in high risk and involvement sites brand strength was the most important antecedent to consumer e-trust. Also privacy and order fulfilment were found as important. In informative-intensive sites the most important determinant of trust was ease of navigation. Finally, Nicolaou & McKnight (2006) found that consumers’ perceived quality of the information presented in a website had a positive effect on consumers’ belief in the trustworthiness of the vendor.

As regards the institutional antecedents to consumer e-trust, Grabner-Kraeuter (2002) proposes that guarantees could be an efficient source for consumer e-trust.

She claims that especially guarantees provided by third parties, which are focused on legal, technical and organizational factors could be potential sources for consumer increased e-trust. Coetzee & Eloff (2005) are in line with Grabner-

(34)

Kraeuter (2002) when proposing that structural information (laws, assurances and security) increases consumer e-trust. Yousafzai et al. (2005) suggest that structural assurances (e.g. security- and privacy policy) and situational normality (e.g. web quality) increase consumers’ perception of trustworthiness, while third- party signs and customer testimonials have no influence on consumer e-trust.

Kimery & McCord (2006) confirmed the latter in their study, but a study by Ba &

Pavlou (2002) found that feedback ratings have influence on consumer e-trust.

Also Aiken & Boush (2006) found that third-party signs (they label those as trustmarks) have a significant effect on consumer trustworthiness perception.

They also found that increased amount of third-party seals (e.g. user reports and

‘verified by Visa’-sign in the same web site) in a single web site does not increase consumers’ trustworthiness perception. They explain that consumers perceive a context-specific expert source trustworthier than, for example, peer-reviews.

Another way to promote institutional trust is provided by Ba (2001) who claims that online communities can be a powerful source for e-trust. More specifically, Ba (2001) argues that the reputation of some online community could convince a single member about the trustworthiness of some trustee even in initial trust development settings. Finally, Corbitt, Thanasankit & Yi (2003) discovered that both consumers’ perceived high technical trustworthiness and perceived site quality increased their e-trust.

1.4.3 Consumer characteristics and e-trust

The third major area of e-trust research concentrates on consumer characteristics and e-trust. Consumer characteristics could be understood as antecedents to consumer e-trust, but unlike the antecedents discussed above, consumer characteristics are consumer-specific antecedents to e-trust. For that reason, they should not be mixed with the interpersonal and institutional antecedents to e-trust.

More specifically, consumer characteristics are present in every trusting-situation, while the interpersonal and institutional antecedents to e-trust are trustee-specific and present only in trusting situations involving some specific trustee. Thus, consumer characteristics are treated here as a separate concept.

Most of the studies in this branch of research deal with dispositional trust. For example, Brown et al. (2004) propose that the level of individual dispositional trust affects e-trust. This idea has been empirically validated in several studies (e.g. Kim & Prabhakar 2004; McKnight, Kacmar & Choudhury 2004; Thompson

& Jing 2007), which serves as evidence that the psychologists’ view of trust is applicable in the e-commerce context, too. In terms of personality, Tan &

Sutherland (2004) propose that consumer personality features, such as

The Initial Stages of Consumer Trust Building in e-Commerce: a Study on Finnish Consumers